Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Reply To Thread

Indiana cuts off Planned ParenthoodFollow

#1 May 11 2011 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
***
2,155 posts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42987292/ns/politics-decision_2012/ wrote:
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a measure Tuesday imposing some of the nation's tightest restrictions on abortions and making Indiana the first state to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.
...
Daniels, a Republican known as a fiscal hawk, is considering a run for president in 2012. Adding his signature to the abortion bill will likely help his image among social conservatives who were upset over Daniels' previous calls for a Republican "truce" on social issues.
...
The law cuts off about $3 million in public funds used to pay for services such as birth control, cancer screening and tests for sexually transmitted diseases.


But hey, at least he's earning brownie points in his party.

Also, it kind of pisses me off that the media is trying to spin this as a majorly anti-abortion bill. It does have additional restrictions, but that doesn't seem to be its main focus.
#2 May 11 2011 at 10:43 AM Rating: Decent
ChanchanXI wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42987292/ns/politics-decision_2012/ wrote:
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a measure Tuesday imposing some of the nation's tightest restrictions on abortions and making Indiana the first state to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.
...
Daniels, a Republican known as a fiscal hawk, is considering a run for president in 2012. Adding his signature to the abortion bill will likely help his image among social conservatives who were upset over Daniels' previous calls for a Republican "truce" on social issues.
...
The law cuts off about $3 million in public funds used to pay for services such as birth control, cancer screening and tests for sexually transmitted diseases.


But hey, at least he's earning brownie points in his party.

Also, it kind of pisses me off that the media is trying to spin this as a majorly anti-abortion bill. It does have additional restrictions, but that doesn't seem to be its main focus.

I just can't figure out what the objection is to cutting off public funding for elective services. I would never suggest that this is either the most glaring or most costly example of such a spend, but all of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are elective. None of them can reasonably be said to be a necessity.
#3 May 11 2011 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I don't know why anyone wants to cut off access to birth control. Do we really want young girls and/or people that just can't afford the pill to just be having unwanted babies all willy-nilly? The pill is expensive and a lot of insurance plans don't cover it.
#4 May 11 2011 at 10:53 AM Rating: Decent
Nadenu wrote:
I don't know why anyone wants to cut off access to birth control. Do we really want young girls and/or people that just can't afford the pill to just be having unwanted babies all willy-nilly? The pill is expensive and a lot of insurance plans don't cover it.

I get that, but it's not a function government should undertake, from my perspective. I won't use the slippery slope argument, but I am genuinely curious where it stops. We've gotten to the place in this country where we're willing, with no sense of irony, to accept that paying for two years of unemployment benefits for able-bodied people is not only economically stimulative but our responsibility to those effected by economic downturn. How much is enough? The choice is borrow a few hundred billion more or pay more in taxes, and the one leads to the other.

Edited, May 11th 2011 11:54am by MoebiusLord
#5 May 11 2011 at 10:58 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,393 posts
Quote:
cancer screening


Why cut cancer screening? That's just terrible.
____________________________
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#6 May 11 2011 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,155 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
ChanchanXI wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42987292/ns/politics-decision_2012/ wrote:
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a measure Tuesday imposing some of the nation's tightest restrictions on abortions and making Indiana the first state to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.
...
Daniels, a Republican known as a fiscal hawk, is considering a run for president in 2012. Adding his signature to the abortion bill will likely help his image among social conservatives who were upset over Daniels' previous calls for a Republican "truce" on social issues.
...
The law cuts off about $3 million in public funds used to pay for services such as birth control, cancer screening and tests for sexually transmitted diseases.


But hey, at least he's earning brownie points in his party.

Also, it kind of pisses me off that the media is trying to spin this as a majorly anti-abortion bill. It does have additional restrictions, but that doesn't seem to be its main focus.

I just can't figure out what the objection is to cutting off public funding for elective services. I would never suggest that this is either the most glaring or most costly example of such a spend, but all of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are elective. None of them can reasonably be said to be a necessity.


While I would not overgeneralize to that extent, I do agree there are a lot of elective services that the government funds that could be better spent (even if that's not spent at all). However, I do think that some elective services are worth the investment, such as Planned Parenthood. I do not personally know the exact figures on the cost for birth control, but my understanding is that it is quite expensive.

Even if one were to approach it from an economic instead of a humanitarian point of view, my guess it is less expensive to the government to continue to fund an organization issuing birth control, such as Planned Parenthood, than it would be to account for the tax breaks, welfare, other social programs were those same individuals to spawn. It honestly seems to me Daniels only signed this to earn "rep" with the Republicans.
#7 May 11 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
cancer screening


Why cut cancer screening? That's just terrible.

People need to pay for their own medical bills, duh!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#8 May 11 2011 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
I won't use the slippery slope argument, but I am genuinely curious where it stops.

Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 May 11 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Yes, birth control and cancer screening are important, but what's really important for EVERYONE's health is easy access to STD testing. The less people that are getting tested, the more likely **** will spread. It's a scary world we live in.

Iowa has their **** all up in a tizzy because an abortion doctor from Omaha wants to open up a clinic that specializes in late-term abortions right on the border. Nothing illegal obviously, but the fact that a doctor moved across state lines to take advantage of our abortion laws is causing quite the stir.
#10 May 11 2011 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
I can't believe I voted for this asshat.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#11 May 11 2011 at 11:29 AM Rating: Default
Ailitardif wrote:
I can't believe I voted for this asshat.

I can't believe you figured out how to vote.
#12 May 11 2011 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Guenny wrote:
Yes, birth control and cancer screening are important, but what's really important for EVERYONE's health is easy access to STD testing. The less people that are getting tested, the more likely sh*t will spread. It's a scary world we live in.


And overall women's health, of course. But noooo. ~3% of their services involve abortion, so it should be completely defunded, even though there's already a law that keeps state money from funding abortions.
#13 May 11 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,362 posts
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.
#14 May 11 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
I can't believe I voted for this asshat.

I can't believe you figured out how to vote.

I can explain it to you if you're having trouble. PM me :P
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#15 May 11 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Guenny wrote:
Yes, birth control and cancer screening are important, but what's really important for EVERYONE's health is easy access to STD testing. The less people that are getting tested, the more likely sh*t will spread. It's a scary world we live in.

I'd rather fund cancer screening than birth control or STD testing; the former is a horrible and horribly expensive disease without selection bias, while the latter two are the result of conscious decisions while failing to take proper protection measures. I mean, honestly, condoms aren't that expensive.

Quote:
But noooo. ~3% of their services involve abortion, so it should be completely defunded, even though there's already a law that keeps state money from funding abortions.

The article appears to be purposefully vague as to which funds exactly were yanked. My assumption is that they were State funds, which makes the following paragraph all the more confusing (emphasis mine):
Quote:
While the law cuts off the stream of funding for Planned Parenthood immediately, organization President Betty Cockrum said its offices would open Wednesday to see scheduled patients. Cockrum said the organization will use its Women's Health Fund to cover the cost of patients who rely on federal funding for birth control or health exams.

So what they're saying is that the revoking of State funds impedes the delivery of health care paid for via Federal funds. Am I to assume that there are no hospitals, clinics, or other venues where women can receive care (not including abortions)?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#16 May 11 2011 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

The idea that spending of any sort is linked to a reduction in poverty in the United States is ridiculous. Simple research can show that astronomical growth in spending does little, if anything, to reduce poverty. The percentages of U.S. households below the poverty line vs. State & Federal spending on welfare & social services over 3 decades should be proof enough for anyone.

spneding link

Year			Percent 	Welfare & Social Services Spending 
1975			12.3			52.6 
1976			11.8			57.5 
1977			11.6			60.6 
1978			11.4			65.3 
1979			11.7			72.2 
1980			13			86 
1981			14			92.9 
1982			15			94.1 
1983			15.2			101.3 
1984			14.4			106.6 
1985			14			110.9 
1986			13.6			116.1 
1987			13.4			119.6 
1988			13			127.2 
1989			12.8			136.8 
1990			13.5			153.8 
1991			14.2			174.8 
1992			14.8			195.9 
1993			15.1			207.5 
1994			14.5			219.8 
1995			13.8			226.2 
1996			13.7			225.7 
1997			13.3			222.8 
1998			12.7			225.5 
1999			11.9			234.2 
2000			11.3			243.3 
2001			11.7			259.3 
2002			12.1			280.5 
2003			12.5			297.6 
2004			12.7			305.3 
2005			12.6			322 
2006			12.3			325.8 
2007			12.5			344.6
#17 May 11 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm just spitballin' but I would guess that perhaps the federal grants go through the state department of health or something.

...I just looked at a different article. The funds are delivered via the states' Medicaid programs. This may set up a legal issue as
LA times wrote:
But the federal Medicaid Act, which pays for care for patients who are poor, says such people may choose any provider who is "qualified" and "willing" to provide the service. In many states, Planned Parenthood clinics provide basic healthcare and medical tests for low-income women.


Twiz wrote:
Am I to assume that there are no hospitals, clinics, or other venues where women can receive care

I think the issue is the bill at the end of the services. Although it would stand to reason that areas served by PP may have fewer other clinics providing the same services, especially on a subsidized basis.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 May 11 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Demea wrote:
Quote:
But noooo. ~3% of their services involve abortion, so it should be completely defunded, even though there's already a law that keeps state money from funding abortions.

The article appears to be purposefully vague as to which funds exactly were yanked. My assumption is that they were State funds, which makes the following paragraph all the more confusing (emphasis mine):
Quote:
While the law cuts off the stream of funding for Planned Parenthood immediately, organization President Betty Cockrum said its offices would open Wednesday to see scheduled patients. Cockrum said the organization will use its Women's Health Fund to cover the cost of patients who rely on federal funding for birth control or health exams.

So what they're saying is that the revoking of State funds impedes the delivery of health care paid for via Federal funds. Am I to assume that there are no hospitals, clinics, or other venues where women can receive care (not including abortions)?


From what I heard on the radio last night, this would mean they couldn't accept Medicare for these types of services. The guy who sponsored the bill, or someone else involved, I can't remember, said that he looked into it and there were other clinics (free clinics, health clinics, etc.) nearby that would do these services. But one lady they spoke to who uses Planned Parenthood for these services said she went to the health department and they didn't offer pap smears and breast screenings.

In addition, this would mean that 26,000 women wouldn't be able to take advantage of these services at PP, and that would probably overwhelm the clinics that might be able to accommodate them.
#19 May 11 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

The idea that spending of any sort is linked to a reduction in poverty in the United States is ridiculous. Simple research can show that astronomical growth in spending does little, if anything, to reduce poverty. The percentages of U.S. households below the poverty line vs. State & Federal spending on welfare & social services over 3 decades should be proof enough for anyone.

spneding link

Year			Percent 	Welfare & Social Services Spending 
1975			12.3			52.6 
1976			11.8			57.5 
1977			11.6			60.6 
1978			11.4			65.3 
1979			11.7			72.2 
1980			13			86 
1981			14			92.9 
1982			15			94.1 
1983			15.2			101.3 
1984			14.4			106.6 
1985			14			110.9 
1986			13.6			116.1 
1987			13.4			119.6 
1988			13			127.2 
1989			12.8			136.8 
1990			13.5			153.8 
1991			14.2			174.8 
1992			14.8			195.9 
1993			15.1			207.5 
1994			14.5			219.8 
1995			13.8			226.2 
1996			13.7			225.7 
1997			13.3			222.8 
1998			12.7			225.5 
1999			11.9			234.2 
2000			11.3			243.3 
2001			11.7			259.3 
2002			12.1			280.5 
2003			12.5			297.6 
2004			12.7			305.3 
2005			12.6			322 
2006			12.3			325.8 
2007			12.5			344.6


Well, that's a big, scary chart, but it's not adjusted for inflation. That makes it not quite as scary.
#20 May 11 2011 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

What makes you think he was talking solely about the United States?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#21 May 11 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

What makes you think he was talking solely about the United States?


2 issues here.

1) Moe doesn't really care what happens outside of the US
2) The statement "It's worked in every case" is awfully bold and even one example completely discredits LWV's argument.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#22 May 11 2011 at 1:25 PM Rating: Decent
Technogeek wrote:
Well, that's a big, scary chart, but it's not adjusted for inflation. That makes it not quite as scary.

So you're suggesting overspending on social services decreases poverty?

Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

What makes you think he was talking solely about the United States?

What makes you think I was talking solely about the United States? Are you familiar with the English language? I can help, if you like. "Every case" tends to be all inclusive. Thanks for playing, but shut the f'uck up.
#23 May 11 2011 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I guess its time to buy some stock in wire hangers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#24 May 11 2011 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
No, condoms are not expensive. But let's try to live in the real world, shall we? How many 16 year old boys that wanna score with their 15/16 year old girlfriend are going to wear one? Not many, because kids at that age have no idea about consequences. I know, I was once that age. And if the girls ask them to wear one, the guy will complain and the girl will cave to either avoid an argument or because she's afraid of losing him.

The pill is usually the best option, but like I said, most insurance companies would rather pay for the expensive delivery and subsequently cover the kid for 18 years or so rather than help the woman with 50 bucks a month for her pills.

Stupid ****.
#25 May 11 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Good
Nadenu wrote:
The pill is usually the best option, but like I said, most insurance companies would rather pay for the expensive delivery and subsequently cover the kid for 18 years or so rather than help the woman with 50 bucks a month for her pills.

Stupid sh*t.


My insurance covers the pill. I think a lot of insurance policies do now. They've wised up a little.

ETA: I don't know if Medicare would, though...

Edited, May 11th 2011 2:37pm by Belkira
#26 May 11 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Well, that's a big, scary chart, but it's not adjusted for inflation. That makes it not quite as scary.

So you're suggesting overspending on social services decreases poverty?



Show me where I suggested this. My point was only that your numbers were screwy since they did not adjust for inflation. I get that it's your opinion that the gov't shouldn't be spending on social programs. It's my opinion that they should.

That's why we have elections.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 250 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (250)